Main navigation

Gauke letter – for IT contractors to send to their MPs

Dear [Insert MP’s name],

You will remember that we have corresponded on several occasions about the retrospective tax imposed on myself and thousands of others through Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008, and I have made you aware that as a result of the legislation I am likely to be forced into bankruptcy despite following the law as it stood at the time.

You have previously sought to help me by passing on my concerns about this legislation to David Gauke MP, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, and I am grateful for your assistance thus far. As you may be aware, this issue was the subject of a short debate at Committee Stage of the Finance Bill before the summer recess, when a cross party group of MPs, including Nigel Mills MP, Robert Syms MP, Graeme Morrice MP, and Fabian Hamilton MP supported calls for a review into the impact of the retrospective implementation of Section 58.

Unfortunately, I am concerned that the information contained in Mr Gauke’s response to my original correspondence is inaccurate and contains misleading information, including suggestions that HMRC warned users throughout that the schemes did not work, that retrospective legislation was proportionate and acceptable in this instance, that Section 58 was clarification of existing law, and that as a Minister he is unable to take any action since the courts have decided on this matter.

All of these statements are untrue and I am containing a briefing note [Ed: to be published on CUK shortly] which has been put together by the No to Retro Tax campaign in response to some of the statements that Mr Gauke has made to MPs. I would be grateful if you felt able to pass this on to Mr Gauke and ask for his response to the salient points raised by the campaign.

Finally, I am concerned that, despite the fact Section 58 is going to force thousands of people into bankruptcy, despite the fact that Mr Gauke vociferously opposed the legislation before coming into office and pledged to review it if the Conservatives got into power, and despite the clear discrepancies in HMRC’s explanation for such punitive and draconian action against people who were only following the law as it stood at the time, the Exchequer Secretary has thus far refused to meet with representatives of the victims of this iniquitous legislation.

I would therefore be grateful if you could write to Mr Gauke on my behalf and suggest that he meet with members of the No to Retro Tax campaign so that they can work together constructively to find a solution to this serious injustice.

I am grateful for your continued assistance, and look forward to hearing from you shortly.